MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS

METU STUDENTS’ COLLEGE LIFE

SATISFACTION

Furkan Berk DANIŞMAN

Gizem SARUL

Niyousha AMİNİ

Osman Orçun ADA

Sena Gülizar AKTAŞ

Sıla İlyürek KILIÇ

ANKARA

2022-2023

Abstract

The research was conducted to identify the factors that influence college students' satisfaction with

their college experience. Firstly, the study was focused on the literature review to determine

relevant factors that have been previously studied in the literature. Then, the survey analysis

examined three main independent factors that have been found to be related to college students'

satisfaction: Major Satisfaction, Social Self-Efficacy, and Academic Performance. The findings of

the study suggested that the most important factor affecting students' satisfaction with their college

experience is their satisfaction with their chosen major. This means that students who are satisfied

with the major they have chosen are more likely to be overall satisfied with their college

experience. It's worth noting that, while the study found that major satisfaction is the most crucial

factor, it doesn't mean that other factors such as Social Self-Efficacy, Academic Performance, and

Campus Life Satisfaction are not important. Based on these findings, it is recommend that students

prioritize their major satisfaction when making college choices in order to maximize their overall

satisfaction with their college experience.

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................3

1.1 Aim of The Study

1.2 Research Questions

1.3 Survey Description

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................. 5

2.1 Literature Review on Major Satisfaction

2.2 Literature Review on Social Self-Efficacy

2.3 Literature Review on Academic Performance

2.4 Literature Review on Major Satisfaction, Social Self-Efficacy, Academic Performance &

Campus Life Satisfaction

3. METHODOLOGY/ANALYSIS… .................................................................... 7

4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS… .......................................................................... 9

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

4.2 Major Satisfaction

4.3 Social Self-Efficacy

4.4 Academic Performance

4.5 Campus Life Satisfaction

5. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 23

6. REFERENCES… ............................................................................................... 23

1-) Introduction

The study aims to explore whether and how major satisfaction, social self-efficacy, and

academic performance are associated with METU students’ satisfaction with campus life. Besides

using major satisfaction, social self-efficacy, and academic performance as quantitative and

qualitative indicators, the residential place of the students is used as a categorical variable as well,

since the location of the METU campus might be considered as a “non-city-center” location. In

addition, the literature indicates that not only there might be a relationship between these factors to

the campus life satisfaction of students, but also there is a significant relationship between the

factors as well. Therefore, prior research and investigations are strongly supporting the idea that

there is a correlation between the dependent variable and affecting factors as much as the

correlation between the factors. In light of this potential, the research seeks to give a solution and

provide suggestions to those METU students who are dissatisfied and meet difficulties to achieve

their goals and dreams during their college years. The following diagram illustrates the connection

between the identified factors and campus life satisfaction.

Figure 1: Connection between the factors and campus life satisfaction

1.1-) Aim of the research

This research aims to identify the key factors that influence student satisfaction with their

experience on a college campus. These factors can include major satisfaction, social self-efficacy,

and academic performance. The goal is to use statistical models to better understand the

relationships between these factors and student satisfaction, and to use this information to guide

future research studies. This research will help in understanding the factors that promote student

satisfaction and can help the college administration to improve the student's life on campus.

1.2-) Research Questions

In this research, there are three factors that affect students’s campus life satisfaction - major

satisfaction, self efficacy, academic performance. Research questions were illustrated in the

following table.

Attribute Null Hypothesis (H

) Alternative Hypothesis (H

)

Major Satisfaction

There is no statistically significant

difference between means of male

and female students' overall major

satisfaction.

There is a statistically significant

difference between means of male

and female students' overall major

satisfaction.

Social Self Efficiency

Students with a 3.5 or higher

social self efficacy value produce

equal and lower academic

performance than Students with a

lower social self efficacy value.

Students with a 3.5 or higher social

self efficacy value produce higher

academic performance than Students

with a lower social self efficacy

value.

Academic Performance

There is no statistically difference

in the average campus life

satisfaction between students with

an average of over 3.0 GPA and

students with an average of less

than 3.0 GPA.

There is statistically difference in

the average campus life satisfaction

between students with an average of

over 3.0 GPA and students with an

average of less than 3.0 GPA.

Table 1: Statistical hypothesis and factors

1.3-) Survey Description

The survey of college life satisfaction among METU students was conducted, consisting of

57 questions covering various aspects of their university experience such as satisfaction with their

major, academic performance, and social self-efficacy. The survey utilized a variety of question

formats including Likert scales, drop-down options, open-ended questions, and matrix questions. It

aimed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data to gain an understanding of the students'

overall satisfaction with their college experience. 249 students participated in the survey, which was

administered through a combination of online and in-person methods, with a response rate of 80%.

2-) Review of Literature

2.1-) Literature Review on Major Satisfaction

The studies on how to feel well or at least better are best conceptualized under the name

“subjective well-being” (Diener, 1999). Diener defines subjective well-being as “people’s

evaluations of their lives—evaluations that are both affective and cognitive” (Diener, 2000). Pesch

et al. (2018) indicated in the research new concept is defined as ‘‘enjoyment of one’s role or

experiences as a student’’ (Lent et al., 2007) to evaluate college students’ satisfaction. Among all

the forms of academic satisfaction, major satisfaction has received the most attention in the

experimental literature.”. Students’ satisfaction with their academic major may predict academic

performance, social self-efficacy, and overall life satisfaction.

Kim Hee-Yung (2009) and Pesch et al. (2018) also made research regarding major

Satisfaction. They focused on how to scale major satisfaction and which factors have an effect on it.

However, in this research, the focus is to advance the progress that has been made and measure

major satisfaction by using these findings and analyzing its psychometric properties to check

whether there is an association between major satisfaction and the campus life satisfaction of

METU students.

2.2-) Literature Review on Social Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy has been defined as a person's belief in successfully performing a task

(Bandura, 1997). Having this competence in the social domain allows a person to be effective in

social interactions and to establish positive interpersonal relationships. For a college student, failing

in the campus social life may negatively affect the student academically, socially, and mentally,

which in turn may reduce her/him overall satisfaction at the university. For instance, ineffective

peer group social connections may lead to loneliness in college students, which may result in

depression, low self-esteem, and poor academic performance (Blai, 1989). Moreover, these negative

social behaviors may seriously damage the career path of students.

In order to measure the association of self-efficacy with social behavior, research conducted

by Smith and Betz (2000) studied 354 undergraduate students participating in a psychology course

at Ohio State University. Smith and Betz found high consistency in a development sample of 354

undergraduate students with respect to the Scale of Perceived Social Efficacy (PSSE) which

measures the level of confidence in a variety of social situations. They discovered a robust

relationship between social efficacy and the career development phase in college students (Smith

and Betz, 2000).

In light of this finding, in this survey study, we will attempt to find out if self-efficiency and

campus life satisfaction of METU students are associated, as well as how the social aspects

correspond to academic performance and major satisfaction.

2.3-) Literature Review on Academic Performance

Intuitively, a strong academic background and skill set are important to college achievement.

However, it is normally believed that a host of other students’ personal and institutional attributes

impact student attitudes or their satisfaction with the college experience. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)

theorized that an individual’s intentions, and thus their behavior, may be predicted by attitudes.

From this basis, other researchers have offered that student satisfaction supports their intention to

stay in college, which supports student retention (Martirosyan, Saxon, & Wanjohi, 2014).

Kamemera et. al (2003) reported that student satisfaction with the learning environment and

student services was correlated with their performance. Palak and Walls (2009) found a positive

relationship between satisfaction and achievement. Dryden, Webster, and Fraser (2010) maintained

that achievement was not related to satisfaction with learning except for students with the highest

satisfaction ratings. Learning was most effective with high satisfaction, high cohesion, and low

friction. The literature review showed a mixed relationship between satisfaction and academic

achievement. Taking this into account, our study shifts to examining the role of students' academic

performance on campus life satisfaction and investigates the relationship between the satisfaction of

METU students and academic performance.

2.4-) Literature Review on Major Satisfaction, Social Self-Efficacy, Academic

Performance & Campus Life Satisfaction

It would not be wrong to assume that there is an intuitive connection between university

students' self-efficacy and major satisfaction of the university students. Komarajju, Swanson, and

Nadler (2014) conducted research with 226 students to verify this hypothesis. As a result of the

regression analysis, they observed that the increase in the self-efficacy of the university students

boosted their course satisfaction with their major satisfaction (Komarraju, Nadler & Swanson,

2014). Likewise, we anticipate that the results of our study will demonstrate a link between self-

efficacy and major satisfaction for METU students.

It is not difficult to assume that a satisfied and social student will also be successful

academically. In order to prove that idea empirically, in the article Life Satisfaction and Student

Performance, overall life satisfaction was considered as a dependent variable and the students'

GPAs were examined in relation to their cumulative GPAs and life domains (Rode et al., 2005).

Similarly, in our project, we are planning to examine the relationship between students' GPAs and

their academic achievements by considering campus life satisfaction as a dependent variable.

3-) Methodology/Analysis

It was conducted a survey to students using an online platform called Jotform in order to

gather information for our analysis. Then we it organized and prepared the collected data for

analysis. We utilized the ggplot2 package in R-Studio to create visual representations of the data.

We determined whether the variables in question were parametric or non-parametric using the

Shapiro Wilk test. Based on the results, we either employed a linear regression model or an

appropriate non-parametric test for further analysis.

Some of the major satisfaction questions were divided into three subgroups satisfaction with

training, satisfaction with the facilities, and satisfaction with the program schedules. Responses are

obtained using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not very well, strongly disagree) to 5 (very

well, strongly agree). After that, subgroup responses were averaged for each person. Then, the

descriptive statistics were examined. A bar graph was created to examine the means of subgroups

by faculties. Shapiro Wilk normality test was applied to determine whether the satisfactions of

males and females were normally distributed. In addition, the shape of the distribution was

measured by calculating the kurtosis and skewness coefficients. The z-test was used to determine

whether there is a significant difference between the overall major satisfaction means of females

and males. The reason for this is the population variance was unknown, however, the sample size

was over 30. The bar plot was established to show the trend of increasing/decreasing students’

confidence in readiness for the world of work through their academic classes. Shapiro Wilk

normality test and QQ-plot were applied to determine whether major satisfaction was normally

distributed or not. Regression analysis was used to examine the causal relationships between

academic performance, campus life satisfaction (predictor variables), and major satisfaction

(response variable). A correlation chart was generated to examine the relationship between all the

variables.

This survey involved the Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE) by Smith & Betz (2000).

the measure consists of 25 logically formulated items that evaluate the degree of confidence in a

series of social conditions. 19 of these items were relatively selected and separated into 4

subfactors: Networking (1-5) - Expressing ideas (6-9) - Teamwork(10-11) Self-Confidence and

Assertiveness (12-19). The responses are collected using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(not very well) to 5 (very well). In this study, Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal

consistency reliability of the scale. The bar graphs were generated to demonstrate the distribution of

social self-efficacy between two factors: Faculty and Residence. The post-Stratification sampling

method by gender is applied to minimize the sampling error and potential non-response bias. The t-

test was established to decide whether there is a significant association between the students with a

higher social self-efficacy value with producing better academic performance.

In the academic performance part of METU Students’s Campus Life Satisfaction Survey, the

academic performance of students was evaluated based on the 6 different sub-factors. According to

the average of 14 different likert questions of these factors, a scaled academic performance value

was created for each student. In the following graph, the students’s campus life satisfaction and

their GPA relation were illustrated based on the conducted research question.

4-) Results and Findings

4.1-) Descriptive Statistics

Figure 2: Academic class distribution

In Figure 2, their overall satisfaction scores out of five are shown. Freshman, Sophomore,

and Senior counts are almost the same. The number of Junior students is the most. The numbers

indicated on the graphs show the average of the satisfaction the students get from the campus out of

5. While the satisfaction received from the campus is high in prep (3.48) and junior students (3.52),

these values decrease for the Senior (3,32) and Sophomore (3.34) students.

Table 2: Satisfaction values of the factors

In Table 2, the satisfaction values of the four factors are between 2.92 and 3.43 out of 5. The

minimum value is Social Self Efficacy, and the maximum value is Campus Life Satisfaction.

Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha for the survey

Figure 3: Participant’s geographic distribution

4.2-) Major Satisfaction

4.2.1-) Subgroups of Major Satisfaction

The subgroups seen in Table 4 are ranked according to their mean values. It has been

observed that the median value of satisfaction of training is higher than the other subgroups, and the

most repeated value is four. When these descriptive statistics were examined, it was concluded that

METU students were more satisfied with the training.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for the Major Satisfaction Subgroups (n=249)

The means of these subgroups were investigated according to faculties. When Figure 4 is

examined, it was determined that satisfaction of training was generally higher than others, and

satisfaction of program schedules was less, and the results were consistent with descriptive

statistics. It is observed that satisfactions in faculties are generally evenly distributed. However,

when the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is examined, it is seen that the training

is quite high compared to the others. On the other hand, program schedules satisfaction in the

faculty of foreign languages is lower than the others. When Figure 4 is examined in general, it has

been determined that the satisfaction values are mostly above three, which means neutral, and it has

been concluded that METU students are satisfied with these subgroups.

Figure 4: Distributions of Major Subgroups by Faculties

4.2.2-) Overall Major Satisfactions of Female and Male

Due to the small number of participants who chose prefer not to say and others, only the

overall major satisfactions of female and male were examined. First, it was tested whether the

distributions were normally distributed. According to the Shapiro Wilk normality test results in

Figure 5, the null hypothesis could not be rejected because the p values for both genders were

greater than significance level (p = 0.1203 > 0.05 for female, p = 0.1484 > 0.05 for male).

Therefore, it has been determined that the major satisfactions of female and male are normally

distributed.

Figure 5: Normal Q-Q Plot of Overall Major Satisfactions of Female and Male

Since kurtosis values are greater than three for both gender (see Figure 6,7) , they have

leptokurtic distribution. It means that they tend to produce more outliers than the normal

distribution. The skewness coefficient for female is 0.36 (see Figure 6). Because it is bigger than

zero, distribution of major satisfaction of female appears to be positively skewed, and more of the

values are concentrated on the left side. On the other hand, because coefficient of skewness of male

(-0.30) is less than zero, distribution is negatively skewed, that is, more of the values are

concentrated on the right side of the distribution (see Figure 7).

Figure 6: Major Satisfaction of Female Histogram Figure 7: Major Satisfaction of Male Histogram

It was examined whether there was a significant difference between the overall major

satisfaction means of female and male. To answer this, a hypothesis has been established. Since p

value in Table 5 is bigger than significance level (0.268 > 0.05), null hyphothesis could not be

rejected. This means that there is no significant difference between the mean of major satisfaction

of female and mean of major satisfaction of male.

Table 5: R Output of Z-Test

4.2.3-) Feeling Ready for The World of Work

By looking at figure 8, it can be examined that there is a significant percentage of students

are unsure about their readiness for the world of work in earlier years of their education. However,

as students progress through their academic classes, they become more confident in their readiness.

This is indicated by a consistent decrease in the percentage of "unsure" responses and a consistent

increase in the percentage of "yes" responses from the preparation school to the junior year where

for the first time, the answer of "yes" is in the majority with 43.96 percent. In the senior year, a

decrease is observed in the percentage of "yes" responses, and the answers to "yes" and "unsure" are

equalized at 39.13 percent. In the master's year, there are no "unsure" responses. In the PhD year,

again the answer of unsure is in the majority with 50 percent.

Figure 8: Feeling Ready for The World of Work Among Academic Class

4.2.4-) Regression Analysis between Academic Performance, Campus Life Satisfaction

and Major Satisfaction

In this part, regression analysis was conducted between academic performance, campus life

satisfaction (predictor variables), and major satisfaction (response variable). It is important to check

whether the response variable (major satisfaction) is normally distributed before conducting a

regression analysis.

Figure 9: A Q-Q plot for Normality

The Shapiro-Wilk test is another way to check for normality. By looking at table 6, it can be

examined that since the p-value of major satisfaction is greater than 0.05 (significance level) which

is 0.08, the major satisfaciton is normally distributed. So, there is no need to do any transformation

before conducting the model.

By looking at table 7, it can be examined that the adj-R square value of the model which is

0.46 indicates that these two predictor variables explain about 46% of the variation in Major

Satisfaction. The F-statistic has a p-value (< 2.2e-16) less than the significance level (0.05),

indicating that at least one of the independent variables in the model is significantly related to

Major Satisfaction. Academic Performance and Campus Life Satisfaction p-values are (3.66e-10)

and (<2e-16) respectively. Since The p-values for both predictor variables are less than 0.05, they

are statistically significant.

Major Satisfaction =0.84+0.28 (Academic Performance)+0.44 (Campus Life Satisfaction)

In regression equation: The intercept 0.8447 (β0) represents the predicted value of the major

satisfaction when all predictor variables academic performance and campus life satisfaction are

equal to zero.

𝛽1 = 0.28, indicates that while all other variables are zero, a one-unit increase in academic

performance will lead to an increase of 0.28 units in Major Satisfaction.

𝛽2 = 0.44, indicates that while all other variables are zero, a one-unit increase in Campus Life

Satisfaction will lead to an increase of 0.44 units in Major Satisfaction.

Table 7: Summary of The Model

4.2.5-) Correlation Analysis between Academic Performance, Campus Life Satisfaction

and Major Satisfaction

The correlation coefficients in the chart provide a summary of the relationship between the

variables and can help to identify any patterns or associations between the variables. By looking at

figure 10 , it can be examined that the correlation between major satisfaction and campus life

satisfaction (0.62) is positive which indicates that as campus life satisfaction increases, major

satisfaction is likely to increase as well. The correlation is considered "strong" since a value of

correlation coefficient in the interval of 0.6 to 0.799, which implies a large association between the

two variables.

Figure 10: Correlation Chart

4.3-) Social Self-Efficacy

4.3.1-) Internal Consistency Reliability Estimate for The Scale

Table 8: Cronbach’s alpha for (PSSE)

Internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.94 was reported by Smith and Betz (2000).

Cronbach’s alpha was obtained to establish the consistency of the scale. The internal consistency

reliability estimate for the scale was (α = 0.78) which indicates it had acceptable consistency.

4.3.2-) Social Self-efficacy Distribution Among Faculty and Residence

Figure 11: Social Self-Efficacy Distribution Among Faculty

Figure 12: Social Self-Efficacy Distribution Among Residence

Social Self-efficacy Distribution was examined among residents and faculties to investigate

their associations. As it is represented in Figure 11 Arts and Science faculty has the highest and the

Foreign Languages faculty has the lowest social self-efficacy values in METU. However, it can be

observed that there is no significant difference between the faculties. By looking at Figure 12 it is

shown that the mean values of in-campus and off-campus residents are extremely close to each

other by 3.5 and 3.35 respectively, so it is conducted that there is no relationship between Social

Self Efficacy and both residents and faculties.

4.3.3-) Post-Stratification on Social Self-Efficacy by Gender

Table 9: Gender Wise Mean and Total Value

Gender

Social self-efficacy value

Female

2.934634

0.05038247

Male

2.906949

0.05206446

Table 10: Post-Stratification on Social Self-Efficacy by Gender

With Post-Stratification on Social Self-Efficacy by Gender in our data, from Table 9 and

Table 10, we can examine that the overall social self-efficacy of Males and Females in METU is

approximately equal to each other. Although, based on our data we can see that Females seem to

have a slight (1.03%) more social self-efficacy effect. At the same time, the small standard error

(~0.05), shows a very small variability in our data. Males have a higher variance, so their variability

is bigger in METU. Both genders have a mean of lower than 3 so both groups seem not to have a

well social self-efficacy. Even after calculating the 95% confidence interval, we can still observe

that both upper and lower bounds are lower than 3. And the total mean (2.91) is also lower than 3.

4.3.4-) Hypothesis Test of Social Self Efficacy In Relation to Academic Performance

Table 11: Output of t-test

In investigating whether Students with higher Social Self Efficacy significantly produce

better academic performance a hypothesis has been established. Since the P value in Figure 4 is less

than the significance level (0.000156 < 0.05) we reject the null hypothesis. As a result, students

with a 3.5 or higher Social Self Efficacy Value significantly produce better academic performance

than students with a 3.5 and lower Social Self Efficacy Value.

4.4-) Academic Performance

Figure 13: GPA relationship with campus life satisfaction

In this graph, in which students with a GPA of 3 and above are compared with the overall

satisfaction from campus life, the average campus life satisfaction value is 3.55 and the

corresponding average GPA is 3.35. Moreover, It was investigated whether there is a difference

between the campus satisfaction of university students whose average is above 3 and below 3.

Welch T test was used to test the stated hypotheses because the variance values were different. The

p value was found to be 0.00769 at the 95 percent confidence interval. For this reason, it was

observed that there was a significant difference between the campus satisfaction of the compared

student groups. Test results can be examined in detail in the following table.

Table 12: T-test output

4.4.1-) Student Attendance in Classes and Recitations

In the following figure, class attendance and recitation attendendance are illustrated as a

percentage.

Figure 14: Class attendance and recitation attendance

As a minor research topic, the effect of class participation and recitation participation on

GPA was desired to be observed in a descriptive manner. For this reason, the group with the highest

class and recitation participation was selected and the distribution of this group was visualized in

the figure given below.

Figure 15: GPA of 75-100% student’s recitation and class attendance

4.4.2-) Regression Analysis for Academic Performance and Campus Life Satisfaction

By looking at Figure 15, it can be examined that the R square value of the model which is

0.28 indicates the academic performance value explain about 28% of the variation in campus life

satisfaction value. The F-statistic has a p-value (< 1.27e-05) less than the significance level (0.05),

indicating that academic performance value is significantly related to campus life satisfaction value.

Table 13: Summary of The Model

4.5-) Campus Life Satisfaction

The graph of the last question, in which students were asked to estimate the most important

factor affecting campus life, is given below.

Figure 16: Students’ guess for the most important factor affecting campus life

As seen in the graph, the factor that the students thought to have the most impact on campus

life was social self efficacy.

Figure 17: Accuracy of linear regression model Figure 18: Accuracy of random forest model

Modeling of student satisfaction with major satisfaction, social efficacy and academic

performance is shown in the graphs above. According to the Linear Regression model, academic

performance has 0.01 p values, social self efficacy has 0.002 p values, and major satisfaction has

2e-16 p values. According to the random forest model, social self efficacy %IncMSE value was 7,

academic performance %IncMSE value was 19 and major satisfaction %IncMSE value was 22.

Although the order of influence of the factors affecting the campus life in which the two models are

compared is different, it has been determined that major satisfaction is the most effective factor in

both models.

5-) Discussion/Conclusion

Academic performance, social self-efficacy and major satisfaction are three important

factors that effect the students’s overall satisfaction. For example, high academic performance can

lead to a sense of accomplishment and pride, which can positively impact a student's life

satisfaction. Furthermore, good academic performance can open doors to various opportunities such

as scholarships, internships, and employment opportunities. Beside academic performance of

students, social self-efficacy can lead such as a sense of belonging, positive relationships with peers

and faculty, and access to resources and support can all contribute to a student's satisfaction with

their college experience. Additionally, a positive campus environment, including the physical

surroundings and overall atmosphere, can also play a role in a student's satisfaction. However, most

of all, the student's satisfaction with the department is most important factor that effects the overall

satisfaction of students. Research has shown that students who are satisfied with their major tend to

have better academic performance. Additionally, major satisfaction can also influence a student's

decision to pursue a graduate degree or enter a specific field of work after graduation. For this

reason, the first thing that students should pay attention to when choosing a university is major

satisfaction.

6-) References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt

& Co.

Blai, B. (1989). Health consequences of loneliness: A review of the literature. Journal of American

College Health, 37, 162-167. [1899, BLAI]

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for national

index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades

of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.

Dryden, M., Webster, W. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Rethinking the effects of classroom

environments on student learning in a large school system.1-16

Kamemera, D., Rueben, L.J., & Sillah, M.R. (2003). The effects of academic environment and

background characteristics on student satisfaction and performance: The case of the

South Carolina State University’s School of Business. College Student Journal, 37(2),

298-308

Kim, Hee-Jung, (2009). The Relationship between the Campus life satisfaction, the Major

satisfaction and Life style type of Dental technology College Students'. Journal of

Technologic Dentistry, 31(3), 87-103.

Komarraju, M., Swanson, J., & Nadler, D. (2014). Increased Career Self-Efficacy Predicts College

Students’ Motivation, and Course and Major Satisfaction. Journal of Career

Assessment, 22(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498484

Lent, R. W., Singley, D. B., Sheu, H. B., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2007). Test of social cognitive

model of academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal of Career Assessment,

15(1), 1–11.

Martirosyan, N.M., Saxon, D.P., & Wanjohi, R. (2014). Student Satisfaction and Academic

Performance in Armenian Higher Education.

Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixed-Methods

Approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 417-441.

Pesch, K. M., Larson, L. M., & Seipel, M. T. (2018). Career Certainty and Major Satisfaction: The

Roles of Information-Seeking and Occupational Knowledge. Journal of Career

Assessment, 26(4), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717723093

Rode, J. C., Arthaud-Day, M. L., Mooney, C. H., Near, J. P., Baldwin, T. T., Bommer, W. H., &

Rubin, R. S. (2005). Life satisfaction and student performance. Academy of

management learning & education, 4(4), 421-433.

Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and Validation of a Scale of Perceived Social

Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8(3), 283–301.

https://doi.org/10.1177/106907270000800306

In order to submit this form, you should open it with Adobe Acrobat Reader.

METU STUDENTS' COLLEGE LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY

Factors Affecting On METU Students’ Life Satisfaction

We are 3rd-year Statistics Students. We are conducting this survey to determine which factors impact the

students’ satisfaction with college life. We would like to know your social level, satisfaction with your

major, and academic performance under the course responsibility. Please complete this approximately 15-

minutes short survey to let us know how satisfied you are with your overall student experience. Your

responses are anonymous, and none of the information will be shared with any third party, so feel free to

provide honest feedback. Thank you for your participation.

Demographic Questions

This part of the survey gathers demographic (age, gender...) data

1-) Which gender do you identify as? *

Female

Male

Others

Prefer not to say

2-) What is your age? *

3-) What is your academic class standing? *

Preparation School

First-year

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Master

Phd

4-) In what Faculty are you registered? Select all that apply. *

Architecture

Arts and Sciences

Economic and Administrative Sciences

Education

Engineering

Foreign Languages

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

5-) What is your Major in METU? *

6-) What is your student residency? *

In campus

Off campus (with family, friends or by your own)

7-) Which year did you first start studying at METU? *

Example: 2019

8-) Which city did you live in before coming to METU? *

Major Satisfaction

9-) How likely do you think your high school advisor had effect on your preference of METU? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very likely Very likely

10-) How satisfied are you with the facilities?

Very

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

Very

Satisfied

Classrooms capacity

Physical conditions of the classrooms

Lecture materials

Equipment of the department's computer

lab

11-) How satisfied are you with the program schedules?

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Course schedule

Major’s courses’ attendance policy

Breaks between courses

12-) How would you rate the content of the department courses? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very well Very well

13-) How would you rate the way you were assessed was a fair test of your skills? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very well Very well

14-) How would you rate the academic staff of the department is sufficient in terms of education

and training? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very well Very well

15-) How would you rate the instructors' knowledge of the principles learning? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very well Very well

16-) Do you think that your training make you ready for the world of work? *

Yes

Unsure

17-) Do you think that you will feel competent for the job after graduating from this department? *

Yes

Unsure

18-) How likely are you to continue attending this department next year? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very likely Very likely

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

19-) How likely are you to recommend this department to others? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very likely Very likely

20-) How would you rate your over all satisfaction with your Major? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not very well Very well

Social Self Efficacy

21-) How well do you become friends with other people? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

22-) How well do you stay friends with other people? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

23-) How well would you make friends in a group where everyone else knows each other? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

24-) How well do you help someone you have recently met become a part of the group to which

you belong? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

25-) How well do you start a conversation with a person you do not know very well? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

26-) How well do you express your opinion to people who are talking about something of interest

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

to you? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

27-) How well do you keep your side of your opinion even though your friends disagree with you?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

28-) How well would you share with a group of people an interesting experience you once had? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

29-) How well would you tell other people that they are doing something that makes you

uncomfortable? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

30-) How well do you work in harmony with other people? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

31-) How well do you ask someone for help when you need it? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

32-) Do you go to parties where you don’t know anyone? *

Yes

33-) Do you volunteer to lead a group or organization? *

Yes

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

34.a-) How well would you participate in the conversation? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

35.a-) How well would you control those feelings? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

36.a-) How well did you participate in group activities? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

Academic Performance

37-) What is your current CGPA? *

(If you are in your first semester in first grade or prep school then you can write 0)

38-) What percentage of the classes have you attended so far? *

0-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-100%

39-) What percentage of the recitations have you attended so far? *

0-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-100%

40-) How important do you think the tasks assigned to you by your professor are? *

1 2 3 4 5

Very unimportant

Very important

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

41-) Have you ever participated in any research at METU? *

Yes

42-) Have you ever participated in a scientific study organized by an institution or organization? *

Yes

43-) Do you have a scientific article published in an academic journal? *

Yes

44-) Have you received certified training that will contribute to your education outside of your

university? *

Yes

45-) How many course(s) have you failed? *

46-) How would you rate your interaction with your professors IN the classroom? *

1 2 3 4 5

Very Poor Very Good

47-) How would you rate your interaction with your professors OUT classroom? *

1 2 3 4 5

Very Poor Very Good

48-) How well do you schedule your time? *

1 2 3 4 5

Very Poor Very Good

49-) How do you evaluate your preparation for each lecture by reviewing your notes? *

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

1 2 3 4 5

50-) How would you evaluate your preparation for exams? *

1 2 3 4 5

Very Poor Very Good

Students' College Life Satisfaction

51-) What do you think about extracurricular (non academic) activities on Campus? *

They are too few

They are just right

I was overwhelmed with the number

52-) Please choose the extracurricular(non-academic) activity that satisfies you the most. *

53-) How would you evaluate the below statements in terms of student life?

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Get training/skill in a special field

Satisfy self needs

Gain knowledge about the world

54-) How would you evaluate your campus life satisfaction in terms of the below statements?

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Campus Location

Facilities in the Campus

Safety in Campus

On-campus expenses

Course variability

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free

Submit

55-) How much do you feel you belong to METU? *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

56-) Please rate your overall satisfaction with the university on a scale of 1 to 5. *

1 2 3 4 5

Not Very Well Very Well

We have one last question for you.

57-) What do you think would have the most impact on the Students’ college life satisfaction? *

Major Satisfaction

Social Self Efficacy

Academic

Performance

Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free